TOPIC DRIFT ALERT
The original topic was as follows:
quote:
So, this recent Bill that is awaiting the signature of Gov. Jan Brewer is yet another shining example of the legislators in Arizona not understanding...pretty much anything that is occuring in the world.
Al Melvin was on Anderson Cooper defending the bill and its ability to protect religious freedom, but had no answer for why this bill was even necessary in a state that does not view homsexuals as a protected class. In fact, our "esteemed" state senator/Governor candidate did not even admit that if someone was fired simply for being gay or lesbian this would constitute discrimination. Cooper did not even ask if it was discrimination in Arizona, but just if he considered someone being fired for this reason an example of discrimination.
Source
Another shining example of the intelligence currently in residence in our State Senate is the fact that three Republicans have come forward saying they just voted yes because of limited time and explanation about the scope of the Bill. Had these three voted how they now, less than one week later, say they should have, the measure would have lost in the Senate 16-14. Instead, because of the strong right in AZ, they bowed to the party and now have to try and save face before upcoming elections.
Source
Is there a possible purpose to this bill, in a state that says it is okay to discriminate on the basis of sexuality anyways. Would an atheist have the freedom to refuse a Christian because their presence puts an undue burden on the atheist to be respectful because so much of what atheists say has a tendency to offend the religious? Could a Muslim refuse service to a Christian because of the historical animosity between the two groups?
How about if I were a Christian who truly believed in the verse, Timothy 2:12, "I do not permit a women to teach or have authority over a man, she must be quiet." Am I allowed to operate a business and refuse to offer qualified women managerial positions because of my religious beliefs?
This law is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility (similar to 1070), that will eventually be crushed as unconstitutional and I think for this reason, and the massive loss of business (possibly the Super Bowl as well), that Jan Brewer will veto this legialation and may have a little sit down with the Repubs in the Senate and try and tone them down slightly. Any other thoughts on the Bassackwardsness of my state with this current legislation? Does anyone think that it has any qualities that would allow it to stand up to constitutional scrutiny?
This topic is not about religion...except in direct reference to the topic.
™ Version 4.2
